You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
AS PART of my continuing search for professional identity, I have become interested in the question of whether there are specific schools of analytical psychology that have developed since Jung's death in 1961. At the outset I must warn my readers that I may be taking them across ground that is familiar; I need the momentum to help me chart the course of Jungian family life with its healthy differences. And, later in the paper, when I discuss differing views of the ego in post-Jungian analytical psychology, my concern is more with post-Jungian analytical psychology than with the ego itself.
The structure of the paper is as follows: I try to present Jung as the founder of a discipline and quite aware of that rôle, in contrast to the way he is usually portrayed. Next I review existing classifications of analytical psychology into what may be called schools, and give my own classification. Two ideas underpin this structure: first that the differences between the schools of analytical psychology can, paradoxically, help us to define the discipline as such; and, second, that if there really is a Jungian point of view we should expect to find in the schools of analytical psychology more than a common tradition. We may discover something in common in the developments within the various schools—a common ideological present and a common ideological future with, of course, major differences of opinion.
To find one's way around in the contemporary Jungian world is not easy. Jung's standing as a psychological thinker and analyst, rather than guru or prophet, is reinforced by analytical psychologists and the writings of the post-Jungians. It no longer rests solely upon Jung's